Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-02-10
ger in the woodp!le" was certain officer
in certain district of Virginia.

ger in the woodp!le" was certain officel
| in certain district of Virginia.
| Mr.. Rogers continued to take up the
provisions of the bill seristim, and to
criticise and ridicule in manner which
brought forth numerous Interruptions
from Mr.. Gibson, and at times the debate
between the two gentlemen was tinged
with personalities.
Mr. Rogers declared that the committee
on expenditures in the department of JUS
tice did not understand the subject upon
which it attempted to legislate. and did
not even appear to understand the En-
glish language, and in a colloquy with
Mr.. Gibson congratulated that gentle
mans constituency upon having retired
him from public life.
Mr.. Gibson, who had reported the bill,
said the gentleman from Arkansas had
seen fit by inuendo to refer to the fact
that one cf the officers provided for in
the bill was brother of his (GibSOn's)S
a district attorney in the state of Virginia.
There could be no other construction
placed on the language used than that OF
personal imputation upon the motives,
character and honesty of the man who
had reported the bills. lie did not mean
either here or elsewhere to submit tame
" to such an arrogant and impudent
statement. I. would have better betitted
the gentleman to have credited to others
the same honesty he claimed
for himself. That gentleman who
claimed to be here as representative
of the officers OF his district was the only
man who dare to impugn the motives OF
the man reporting this bill. The gentle
man had referred to the fact that he had
not been reelected. Perhaps if he had
been a politician, using ring methods,
perhaps if he had been a dema-
gogue he might have been re-
elected as the gentleman had been. He was
confident that the House would not at
tribute any false or improper motives to
the committee which reported the bill
such as the gentleman minated, but he
wished to say on this floor that in saying
that q single feature of the bill was
framed on account OF MS
{ Gibson's) brother being district attor-
ney in Virginia, the gentleman slandered
him toully and falsely in the hall where
he knew it could not be resented.
Mr.. Rogers said he had no eulogy to
offer his own constituents, but if he had
time and opportunity he would eulogize
the gentleman's constituents. 1t would
be time enough TO make use OF
such language as sfalsehood" and
ISLANDER" when he had made some
direct statement. He had said what he
had when provoked to it by the gentle
man. The gentleman had dragged his
brother in here. The bill would show
how well that brother had been taken
care of.
Mr.. Gibson rose to make statement.
Mr.. Rogers remind the gentleman
that his term will soon expire, and he has
not vet learned that he cannot interrupt
without permission.
Mr.. Gibson-I have learned, though, to
be manly.
Mr.. Rogers, continuing, pointed out
that while Mr.. Gibson's brother earned
s44OO, and was given $4,000 by the bill,
the attorney in his district who earned
$1,000, was cut down TO $4,000.
Pending action, the morning hour ex-
pred. The House went into committee
of the whole on the diplomatic and con-
sular bill. After a short debate and
without action the committee rose. Pub
lie business was then suspended. and
the House proceeded to the
consideration of the resolution
relative to the death of W. T. Price, late
representative from Wisconsin, and de-
claring that in his death the country had
lost patriotic citizen and
most faithful public servant. Eulo-
CYSTIC addresses were made by Messrs.
Caswen aud Thomas OF Wisconsin; Pet
tibone, Hall, Henderson of Iowa, and
Breckenridge of Kentucky, those of the
TWO latter being specially eloquent trib-
utes to the character Of the dead Con-
gresham, and the House, as mark OF
respect to the memory of the deceased,
adjourned.